| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | :::Historically, "he" was used for unknown gender. Today, it's "he or she". I don't know your gender, but I can't correctly call you "it". I also don't know the sex of South Africa's head of state, and I won't look that up until after posting this. Can I call him or her "it" because I am uncertain? For a generic god, lower-case god is fine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | | :::Historically, "he" was used for unknown gender. Today, it's "he or she". I don't know your gender, but I can't correctly call you "it". I also don't know the sex of South Africa's head of state, and I won't look that up until after posting this. Can I call him or her "it" because I am uncertain? For a generic god, lower-case god is fine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
| | ::::WRONG the use of it only as an impersonal pronoun is modern, he was never generic, and is not today http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-personal-i-me-you-him-it-they-etc http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it . Nextime someone challanges your preconseptions, check before calling them out. 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | | ::::WRONG the use of it only as an impersonal pronoun is modern, he was never generic, and is not today http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-personal-i-me-you-him-it-they-etc http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it . Nextime someone challanges your preconseptions, check before calling them out. 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
| − | :::::"It" is not being using impersonally in this case. "Impersonal" doesn't mean "no gender", it means "no agent". For example, "it is raining", "it is snowing", "it is windy", and so on. Using it as a pronoun proper is by definition not impersonal. So, definitions that call "it" impersonal have nothing to do with this. If "he" was never generic, explain all of the quotes (many of them hundreds of years old) that begin with "he who...". Also, note that the possessive form of "it" was actually usually rendered as "his" until the word "its" came into common parlance, another clue of the historical use of the gender as default. Other languages that haven't lost their gender system, like Spanish, still use masculine as default.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::Here's a good example of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun, from 1611: "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given." I could produce more, but the point is simply to dispel the assertion that "he" was never generic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: Not generic, just assumed that the audience is male :) also from the definition that no one could read "person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded "[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::I disagree. "Whosoever" is pretty generic, and its gender is independent of the audience. That definition is for uses like "who is it?", which are used in questions (like that example) and indirect questions (like "I don't know who it is"). Using that for this case reminds me of those "DRIVERS SHOCKED BY NEW RULE IN [STATE]" ads. I looked at one of them out of curiosity (clicking on it cost them money, after all), and looked at the disclaimer at the bottom. It specifically justified the use of "rule" in the advertisement by citing a dictionary entry like this one from Webster: "a piece of advice about the best way to do something". But, we all know that even though the dictionary says that, it makes no sense to apply that definition to "NEW RULE IN CALIFORNIA!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.103|108.162.221.103]] 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::Sorry i could not see any argument? Concede defeat? Dictionary is kinda the winner on this, it is a word, and not even a tricky use of a word. And about it being only for lower case god, that's not true either. I bet you would write the following sentences.
| |
| − | ::::::*I like the god with the Nickleback t-shirt. I like HIS taste in music.
| |
| − | ::::::*I like the god in the bachelorette party with a pink feather boa. SHE relay looks like she is ready for a good time.
| |
| − | ::::::*I like the Snake God. IT would look good with an argyle vest, pleated pants, suspenders and a bow tie.
| |
| − | ::::::*Ohh, look at the cute baby god I can never have one because I am shooting blanks. Is IT a girl or a boy?
| |
| − | ::::::As you can see it is all about assumed gender and audience, you just assume you know what God is. Read closely and after you notice i broke every rule suggested, and wrote the sentences as you would have wanted them :), maybe we should go by the dictionary.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.55|108.162.240.55]] 20:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::One last thing She/he is not even a word as / is not a letter. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.55|108.162.240.55]] 20:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::I never added s/he; that was someone else who, like me, thought "it" was unnatural. But, would you say it's isn't a word because ' isn't a letter? First off, don't tell me about dictionaries if you can't spell "really", "bachelorette", capitalize "I", and so on. As one who has studied two foreign languages very deeply, Japanese through current materials and Latin through materials using very antiquated English, I have learned that using special-case dictionary definitions creates incomprehensible text unless you are using them in the correct context. You are using it in the incorrect context for this situation. The first two examples are irrelevant because I never said lower-case god was required to be genderless. I disagree with the capitalization of the third one. If it were a proper noun, we would know the gender. If it were truly genderless, that would not be an exception. The fourth one falls perfectly in line with the rules of English, which I laid out; the sentence you used "it" in was a direct question. The three addenda I would add to that rule, although you haven't addressed them, are: "it" can be used for identification ("it's John", "it was a strange man from Boston"), as it has some extra declarative force; we can freely refer to animals as "it", probably partly because it's so hard to sex some animals, and partly because we don't like to anthropomorphize our food; children can sometimes be called "it", as in "The child opened its eyes". Show me an example of real, published English that breaks this rule, and you may have a point. So far, you have nothing.
| |
| − | ::::::::You where picked on too much as a kid, I am sure God is a big enough "man" not to get offended, even if you are not. It is what the word means. People call animals it because we don't have to worry about them being offended, as they where never called "it" in the playground. In other words we are not concerned with there gender, just as this case. Therefore a god (and the Snake God is capital in this case because it is a entity or title - not a descriptor, see God of Lightning), especially a foreign god (as there is less of a close association with the speaker) that looks like a snake would likely be referred to as it, but just to prove my point i used Amoebae, though i could have used any term that does not clearly define the sex, like joipgsdfgjkpsdfgjsdkjgdsk. Face it you are arguing with someone who bested you. My lack of syntax in this discussion just shows that i am spending far less time on this than you, oh and that you where bested by an idiot like me. I could go on and make a list of all the incorrect things you said, like anthropomorphize when animals don't need to be made human to have sex, but i am smart enough to know what you meant, even though i inconsistently capitalize i as pushing the shift key just takes too long. by the way, you just gave more cases at the end of your argument as to why "it" is correct, thanks, or is it easy to sex a god that has not even been defined. LOL (lots of love) ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.174|108.162.221.174]] 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::: I'm afraid it is right; it has bested me, because it said so. Until then, I was in the lead. Unfortunately for me, it has learned that claiming victory is all that is necessary, rather than putting together a credible and coherent argument with legitimate examples. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.161|108.162.220.161]] 17:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::You said it is used when it is hard to sex, I said that it is hard to sex the God in this comic due to it being undefined. Therefore you either refute the second argument, which is only my personal interpretation of this silly little comic and not something I would argue for, or admit defeat. Logic 101 for you :) By the way this is just the internet, don't get so emotional, I am sure you are a good person at heart, just loosen up and have some fun. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.55|108.162.240.55]] 15:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::If you ever referred to your wife or husband as "it", you may be in trouble. If you refer to someone not of your race as "it", you sound extremely racist. If you call a politician "it", you are making a political statement. Using "it" to refer to a transgender person is extremely offensive. This isn't really that hard. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.161|108.162.220.161]] 13:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| | :::I don't mean to pick a fight, really. I just feel that using "it" to refer to a capitalized God is extremely unusual. So much so that both I and the initial commenter immediately noticed and commented on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | | :::I don't mean to pick a fight, really. I just feel that using "it" to refer to a capitalized God is extremely unusual. So much so that both I and the initial commenter immediately noticed and commented on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| Line 61: |
Line 38: |
| | Margaret is kinda hot. | | Margaret is kinda hot. |
| | Is it normal to be sexually attracted to an xkcd character ? {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.29}} | | Is it normal to be sexually attracted to an xkcd character ? {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.29}} |
| − | :Dude, Margaret is a 6th-grader, buying her first training bra. You're sick! (Well, either that, or it's not easy to distinguish 13-year-olds from 23-year-olds when they're drawn as stick figures with no context.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 02:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) See also title text of comic [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]] | | [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) See also title text of comic [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]] |
| Line 91: |
Line 67: |
| | ;Batman v. Superman | | ;Batman v. Superman |
| | So was I totally off thinking this may have had something to do with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice teaser trailer where graffiti "False God" on a statute of Superman. Batman stares at Superman, saying: "Tell me, do you bleed? You will." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.29|108.162.221.29]] 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | | So was I totally off thinking this may have had something to do with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice teaser trailer where graffiti "False God" on a statute of Superman. Batman stares at Superman, saying: "Tell me, do you bleed? You will." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.29|108.162.221.29]] 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | ;Not News
| |
| − | Matthew 12:30-32 {{unsigned ip|162.158.68.149}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If anyone cares, I wrote a roleplaying game setting based on this and the Left Behind series. http://emlia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Tripocalypse {{unsigned|162.158.56.209}}
| |
